Parashat Chaya Sarah (The Life of Sarah)

Genesis 23 – 25:13

The Parsha for this week begins with the words “And the life of Sarah came to be one hundred and 27 years” Genesis 23:1: She, Sarah died and Abraham mourned.

Abraham Grieves and Bargains:

We see Abraham deeply grieved over the loss of his wife, Sarah who had been his companion ever since they left Ur of the Chaldees where he took her as wife before they traveled with Terah and Lot towards the land of Canaan. They stopped at Haran which was a city in what is modern Turkey. This is a trip of around 950 kilometers. They lived there until Abraham’s father Terah died. Gen. 11:30-31. And then the call of Abraham began his journey with his wife, lot and their servants towards Canaan.

We know from the Biblical account of the birth of Isaac that Sarah was 9 years younger than Abraham. She was, as it is stated 127 years old when she died leaving Abraham at 136 years of his life and her son Isaac at 36 years of age. 

Courtesy of Aish.com

Abraham, in the midst of mourning, realized that he had no permanent place to bury Sarah and got up from beside his loved one and went to bargain with the Hittites for the burial cave of Machpelah which is in Hebron, the area in which Abraham lived at the time. 

He approached the leaders of the Hittites and asked to buy from them a burial site. They offered to give him a place among the choices of sites, but he refused saying he wanted to buy it. It is clear that Abraham at this time knew the devious mind of the Canaanites and needed a guarantee that they would not reassume this land as theirs after his death. At this point he asked to have them intercede with the owner of the cave of Machpelah to sell it to him. He also offered it for free, but after arguing for the purchase, Ephron, son of Zohar, agreed upon 400 shekels of silver and the deal was done. 

The question arises to those of us who look back upon the history of Israel and the problems that have always existed with those who claim to own the land, “why would he buy it if it was already promised to him.” 

From history, we know that it took many years after Abraham to fully conquer the land of Canaan. After the time in Egypt, 400 years, and 40 years in the wilderness under the leadership of Moses, the beginning of the conquest of the promised land began with the crossing of the Jordan and the fall of Jericho. Previously the tribes of Gad, Reuben and the half tribe of Manassah had requested the fertile land east of the Jordan, the Bashan and conquered it from King Og of that area. But this was given to them based on their commitment to fight for the rest of Canaan until it was subdued. 

Abraham, had to live with the promise of the land, even though he himself could only trust this promise. This was similar to God’s promise of descendants that would be a great nation, and for which he waited for 25 years for the birth of Isaac. Then with the call to Mt. Moriah where he was told to offer up Isaac, his faith was tested almost to the edge of his endurance. 

Abraham knew well the mind of the residents of the land at that time, which by the way have not changed a lot even in modern times. The past few years of our life in Israel has showed us the mind of the Middle East like we would have never imagined it. Israel fights with subtlety. Sometimes it is not apparent why the nation of Israel does what it does. There have been peace agreements and land even given to keep peace, but it never works. Maybe if the government of Israel studied the life of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua and the conquest of the land, we might get it. The sad thing is that many of those who lay claim to the land are actual descendants of Abraham through Ishmael or Esau or any of Abraham’s other sons whom were born to him by Keturah.

Gen 25:1-4 speaks of the offspring of Keturah:

“1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. 2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. 3 And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim. 4 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.”

Trouble in the Middle East:

If Abraham had foreseen the trouble that would exist throughout History through his descendants, maybe he would not have taken another wife! It might be easy to justify that they were all descendants of Abraham and therefore had a right to the land. Yet, Isaac was specified inheritor of the land which was promised to Abraham. The promise of land, and the promise of a son, both went hand in hand. That which Abraham created on his own impulse became a curse to his descendants. 

Gen 25:5-6:

 “5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. 6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.”

Now today, when the true descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have lived in exile for 2500+ years, owing to their own disobedience, the challenge to take what is rightfully ours facing the odds of the many nations that would deprive us of this inheritance, is overwhelming to most. Even our supposed allies see in our extremity an opportunity to usurp power over parts of the land. Gaza, though much of it is destroyed, has become a coveted bargaining tool for the United States. We must not succumb to this manipulation! 

Where is the promise of the God of Abraham? Where is the faith of Abraham? How can we sit on our hands, so to speak, and back off from the victories we have made, trusting the “chariot and horses” of the nations that boast more power than Israel? Where is the God of Israel?

Psa 20:

“7 Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of YHVH, our God.”

Isa 31:

 “1 Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek YHVH!”

La Inclinación al Mal o El Poder de la Elección

Cómo atrapar a una Serpiente antes de que te Muerda

Entre las religiones que aceptan la Biblia como la palabra de Dios, existen dos enfoques que intentan explicar la naturaleza del ser humano. Los cristianos, en su mayoría, adoptan la doctrina del Pecado Original, una creencia respaldada por la comprensión actual derivada de los escritos del Nuevo Testamento. Los judíos, sin embargo, no aceptan esta teoría, ya que las enseñanzas presentadas en el Antiguo Testamento o Tanaj no la apoyan. Lo que vino sobre la humanidad después de comer del árbol en el Jardín lo llamamos la Inclinación al Mal. En este ensayo deseo abrir una discusión sobre estas dos creencias y sus efectos en la humanidad.

Primero, ¿qué es el Pecado Original y cuándo se formalizó esta doctrina en el cristianismo?

“Aunque la historia del Génesis sienta las bases para el concepto de la Caída, San Agustín fue el primero en usar el término pecado original y en articular su transmisión a través de la reproducción humana. La Iglesia Católica Romana posteriormente formalizó la doctrina en el Concilio de Trento, mientras que figuras como Martín Lutero y Juan Calvino contribuyeron a su desarrollo y difusión, especialmente durante la Reforma Protestante.” (Ver referencia aquí).

¿Pero es esto viable?

La creencia de que Adán y Eva, al elegir comer del árbol prohibido, quedaron sin otra alternativa que recibir una naturaleza caída —pecaminosa desde el nacimiento— y que toda la humanidad ha cargado con esta maldición desde ese momento hasta hoy, evidentemente requiere una intervención divina desde el Cielo que provea un sustituto que limpie el registro. Sin embargo, si analizamos esta teoría y lo que realmente revela, veremos aspectos que no encajan con el cuadro general.

Surge la pregunta de por qué el Eterno habría de colocar ese árbol en el jardín y permitir que Eva fuera seducida y engañada en su naturaleza inocente. Esto presenta la imagen de un Dios cruel e injusto que creó intencionalmente a la humanidad para fracasar. También lleva a la necesidad de un dios sustituto que comprenda a la humanidad al asumir carne humana y pueda presentarla ante este Dios airado, justificándola con su propia sangre. Pero no puedo aceptar esta teoría, por lo que hace al distorsionar el carácter del Dios del Universo.

Si mis dos artículos anteriores son correctos (pronto los subo en español), cuando el Creador dijo: “Hagamos al hombre a nuestra imagen, conforme a nuestra semejanza”, estaba hablando del ser humano, quien participaría —por su propia elección— en decidir qué naturaleza lo dominaría. También indica que la humanidad, aunque creada por la mano de Dios, fue hecha del polvo de la tierra, lo que significa que fue creada para ser humana, y no a imagen de los ángeles. Sus elecciones decidirían si reflejaría la imagen divina o si sería simplemente como las bestias que perecen.

Aquellos que se esfuerzan por alcanzar la imagen Divina luchan con las dificultades impuestas a su naturaleza por las decisiones que sus primeros padres tomaron junto al árbol prohibido y también especialmente difícil son los impulsos que cargamos por razón de los pecados de nuestros antepasados cercanos.

Entonces, ¿qué fue lo que realmente ocurrió junto al árbol?

La serpiente presentó un argumento para hacer dudar de la palabra de Dios y de Su propio carácter. Eva eligió ofrecer la misma tentación a Adán, quien podría haber resistido, pero debido a su insistencia, se unió a ella en la desobediencia. En ese momento, ambos optaron por el derecho de decidir por sí mismos en contra de las instrucciones del Creador. ¿Era correcto que eligieran por sí mismos en ese punto de su tiempo en la tierra? La elección se basó claramente en la duda hacia su Creador y en el deseo de algo nuevo y emocionante. ¿No es esto lo que está detrás de casi todas las malas decisiones que los humanos toman? Si pensamos en los pecados que usualmente nos tientan, la mayoría son irracionales desde el punto de vista del buen juicio: pecados de lujuria, explotación, autogratificación, asesinato, robo, abuso de drogas…

El judaísmo afirma que la inclinación al mal surgió cuando la pareja eligió comer del fruto. Pero ¿en qué se diferencia la Inclinación al Mal del Pecado Original?

Entonces, ¿cuál es la diferencia entre las dos perspectivas?

El Pecado Original es una carga con la que la humanidad no puede lidiar a menos que tenga un sustituto. El ser humano nace con una naturaleza pecaminosa y no puede ser justo por sus propias decisiones, ni por la represión de su naturaleza maligna, ni encerrándose en monasterios donde se practica el autocastigo.

La Inclinación al Mal, por otro lado, es una tendencia maligna que también se transmite de generación en generación; pero, contrariamente a la visión de la condición impotente del hombre bajo el Pecado Original, la inclinación al mal puede ser dominada mediante la obediencia a la Torá y buscando humildemente la ayuda del Todopoderoso.

Hay un texto de prueba para esto en el Génesis, donde Dios interrumpe a Caín antes de que mate a su hermano:

Génesis 4:

“5 Pero no miró con agrado a Caín ni a su ofrenda. Por eso Caín se enojó mucho, y su semblante se abatió.

6 Entonces YHVH dijo a Caín: ‘¿Por qué estás enojado? ¿Y por qué ha decaído tu rostro?

7 Si haces lo bueno, ¿no serás aceptado? Pero si no haces lo bueno, el pecado está a la puerta al acecho; te desea, pero tú debes dominarlo.’”

Así que, antes de que Caín actuara movido por su ira, se le dijo que podía y debía dominarla. Esto no suena como el Pecado Original, del cual se afirma que el ser humano no puede hacer nada por sí mismo y que esa es la razón por la que Jesús vino al mundo.

Desde muy temprano en la historia del mundo, el mismo Dios le dice a Caín que puede “hacer lo correcto” y que, si lo hace, “será aceptado”. Nótese que no se le condena por su enojo. Esta es la inclinación al mal que recibió de sus padres de forma genética. Pero Elohim continúa: “tú debes dominarla.”

¿Podemos nosotros, como seres humanos, dominar nuestras pasiones? El cristianismo dice que no podemos sin un sustituto. La Biblia dice que podemos hacerlo con la ayuda de Dios y con nuestra propia determinación. Así se formaron los hombres y mujeres justos de la antigüedad: el ser humano elevándose por encima del polvo de la tierra para reflejar en sí mismo la imagen Divina.

Antes del diluvio, había dos clases distintas de personas: los justos, hijos de Dios, que ejercían control sobre sus pasiones y se sometían a la guía de Dios; y la multitud impía, aquellos que eligieron seguir sus pasiones. El mundo llegó a su fin en ese tiempo para todos, excepto para ocho personas.

¿Existen otros ejemplos? ¿Ofrece Dios fuerza para vencer?

Entonces, ¿qué hacemos con el Salmo 51?

 “5 He aquí, en maldad he sido formado,

Y en pecado me concibió mi madre.”

Este versículo se usan los cristianos para respaldar la doctrina del Pecado Original, y sin embargo, la Inclinación al Mal (el deseo de hacer el mal) también se transmite de generación en generación. Entonces, ¿qué está diciendo David? Que la tentación fue abrumadora y que falló. Que era natural para él ser tentado y, aunque no lo justifica, le recuerda esto al Creador. Luego expresa su gratitud por la misericordia de Dios. En cierto modo, culpa a su herencia por haberle transmitido esa inclinación, pero en las palabras que siguen, asume toda la responsabilidad.

 Salmo 51:

“3 Porque yo reconozco mis transgresiones,

Y mi pecado está siempre delante de mí.

7 Purifícame con hisopo, y seré limpio;

Lávame, y seré más blanco que la nieve.

8 Hazme oír gozo y alegría,

Y se recrearán los huesos que has abatido.

9 Esconde tu rostro de mis pecados,

Y borra todas mis maldades.

10 Crea en mí, oh Dios, un corazón limpio,

Y renueva un espíritu recto dentro de mí.

11 No me eches de delante de ti,

Y no quites de mí tu santo Espíritu.

12 Vuélveme el gozo de tu salvación,

Y espíritu noble me sustente.

14 Líbrame de homicidios, oh Dios, Dios de mi salvación,

Y cantará mi lengua tu justicia.

15 Señor, abre mis labios,

Y publicará mi boca tu alabanza.

16 Porque no te agrada el sacrificio, que yo lo daría;

No quieres holocausto.”

Es interesante notar que, mientras David suplica a Dios que lo perdone y le restaure un corazón limpio, demuestra que esto no tiene nada que ver con un sacrificio de sangre. Esto muestra la respuesta humana confiada hacia Dios después de haber pecado, y también revela al Dios verdaderamente justo a quien servimos, quien no necesita un intermediario que actúe como abogado en nuestro favor. Nuestro propio Creador es nuestro Salvador y el único que puede perdonar el pecado.

 Miqueas 7:

“18 ¿Qué Dios como tú, que perdona la maldad

y olvida el pecado del remanente de su heredad?

No retuvo para siempre su enojo,

porque se deleita en misericordia.

19 Él volverá a tener compasión de nosotros;

sepultará nuestras iniquidades,

y echará en lo profundo del mar todos nuestros pecados.”

Nínive

En la historia de Jonás, el pueblo de Nínive se vistió de cilicio y se arrepintió de sus pecados después de que Jonás les anunciara la destrucción inminente de su ciudad. Entonces Dios se arrepintió del castigo que había planeado contra ellos y los perdonó, aunque esto enfureció a Jonás.

Jonás 3:

“6 Cuando el aviso de Jonás llegó al rey de Nínive, éste se levantó de su trono, se quitó su manto real, se cubrió de cilicio y se sentó sobre el polvo.

7 Luego proclamó en Nínive, por decreto del rey y de sus nobles:

‘Que ningún hombre ni animal, ni ganado ni oveja, pruebe cosa alguna; que no coman ni beban agua.

8 Que hombres y animales se cubran de cilicio, y clamen a Dios con fuerza. Que cada uno se convierta de su mal camino y de la violencia que hay en sus manos.

9 ¿Quién sabe? Tal vez Dios cambie de parecer y, con compasión, retire el ardor de su ira, y no perezcamos.’

10 Cuando Dios vio lo que hicieron, cómo se apartaban de su mal camino, desistió del castigo que había anunciado y no lo llevó a cabo.”

Jonás 4:

“1 Pero esto disgustó mucho a Jonás, y se enojó.

2 Entonces oró a YHVH y dijo:

‘Oh YHVH, ¿no era esto lo que yo decía cuando aún estaba en mi tierra? Por eso me apresuré a huir a Tarsis; porque sabía que tú eres Dios clemente y misericordioso, tardo para la ira y grande en misericordia, y que te arrepientes del mal.’”

¿Nacen los bebés pecadores?

Esta creencia —una de las más condenatorias de todas— sitúa el pecado en la genética, como algo imposible de superar. Saca el pecado del ámbito de la acción y lo coloca en la carne.

En el caso de Caín, mencionado antes, cuando Elohim le habló, él ya estaba enojado y dispuesto a matar a su hermano. Pero ese pensamiento y esa actitud no eran pecado; se le recordó que debía vencer la tendencia al mal.

Cuando nos culpamos a nosotros mismos o a otros por lo que pensamos, estamos perdiendo de vista todo el cuadro. El pecado es lo que ocurre después de la tentación.

¿Cómo dejar de fumar? ¿Solo hazlo?

Una persona desea dejar de fumar (y aclaro aquí que no se habla del fumar como pecado).

El impulso es intenso: “Solo déjame fumarme este cigarrillo más.” Pero esta vez resistes. La ansiedad aumenta. Dejas de fumar durante dos semanas, y luego alguien enciende un cigarrillo y te ofrece uno. Esta vez lo aceptas, lo enciendes y lo disfrutas… pero luego te sientes avergonzado. Aun así, no te rindes. Lo intentas de nuevo.

Dos meses después ocurre lo mismo, y te odias por tu debilidad, pero decides intentarlo otra vez. Dos años más tarde, el deseo es menor, aunque sigue presente, y has aprendido a mantenerte alejado de las personas en el trabajo que salen a fumar. Evitación.

Diez años después, el olor del tabaco todavía te afecta, pero ya has aprendido a resistir y evitarlo. Y ahora ya no eres fumador. ¡Bien por ti!

Algunas personas nunca reúnen el valor para dejarlo, y otras simplemente no quieren hacerlo. Pero esto tiene que ver con decisiones y cambio.

¡Podemos lograr casi cualquier tentación, si realmente lo proponemos!

¿Y las palabras? ¿Qué hay del mal genio y las maldiciones?

Si las palabras hieren injustamente a las personas, ¿se clasifican como pecado? ¡Por supuesto! Si el maldecir nos hace ver débiles y malvados, sin autocontrol, entonces quizá sea buena idea empezar un “frasco de malas palabras”: mete dinero en él cada vez que maldigas.

Cuando se acumule, dónalo a caridad. Convierte algo malo en algo bueno.

Y si duele lo suficiente, puede ser que empieces a ver un cambio real.

Así que creo que la inclinación al mal —la tentación de hacer cosas incorrectas— no es pecado. El pecado es lo que haces con aquella tentación. 

Y en cuanto al Pecado Original, ningún bebé está destinado al fuego del infierno por no ser rociado. Morimos por nuestros pecados, no por nuestras tendencias.

Con deseos de un buen sellado, (Fue escrito para el Yom Kippur del 2025).

Su hermana en la practica de la verdad,

Ariella Bat Abraham

Favor de darle Like, y inscribir (tiene que poner la direccion de correspondencia electronica y luego confirmar en el mensaje para entrar en la inscripcion.

Parashat Vayera en Espanol

Génesis 18-22

Sodoma, la Promesa a Abraham, Ismael, Agar, Isaac, la Akedá… Gaza

Génesis 18–22 cubre mucho terreno. Probablemente hay suficiente material en cualquiera de los temas registrados en estos cuatro capítulos como para escribir un libro entero.


La visita de los ángeles a Abraham

En Génesis 18, YHVH se aparece a Abraham, y él ve pasar tres figuras mientras está sentado a la entrada de su tienda en “el calor del día”.
Génesis 17 relata la circuncisión de Abraham, Ismael y todos los varones de su casa. El capítulo 18 continúa con Abraham sentado a la entrada de su tienda. Muchos comentarios rabínicos dicen que Abraham aún sentía el dolor de la circuncisión cuando recibió a los visitantes. Sin embargo, esto no está claro en la lectura literal del texto.

En el capítulo 17:26 leemos:
“Así Abraham e Ismael su hijo fueron circuncidados en aquel mismo día.”
Por el contexto parece que Abraham se circuncidó a sí mismo y a su hijo Ismael el mismo día en que recibió el mandamiento. El resto de los siervos de su casa son mencionados después, por lo que podrían haber sido circuncidados más tarde. No queda claro que todos fueran circuncidados el mismo día, ni que Abraham estuviera sentado “en el calor del día” (según los rabinos, “calor” aludiendo al máximo dolor) el tercer día cuando llegaron los visitantes celestiales. Aquí no se menciona el tercer día.

El Talmud babilónico (Bava Metzia 86b) interpreta “en el calor del día” como una referencia al tercer día después de la circuncisión de Abraham, cuando tenía 99 años.

Lo que es posible entender de un texto no es necesariamente un hecho. Si nos mantenemos fieles al texto bíblico, quedarán preguntas sin respuesta que deben ser exploradas o aceptadas como tales.
¿Cuál sería el motivo para decir que YHVH visitó a Abraham el tercer día, cuando estaba en dolor extremo?

El texto muestra a Abraham corriendo al encuentro de los tres visitantes. ¿Cómo podría hacer esto si estaba sufriendo?

“Y Abraham alzó los ojos y vio tres hombres que estaban junto a él; y al verlos, corrió desde la entrada de su tienda para recibirlos, y se postró en tierra, y dijo: Señor mío, si he hallado gracia ante tus ojos, te ruego que no pases de tu siervo. Que se traiga un poco de agua, y lavad vuestros pies, y recostaos bajo el árbol. Y traeré un pedazo de pan para que confortéis vuestros corazones; después seguiréis vuestro camino.”

¿Por qué Abraham se dirige a los tres hombres en singular (“Señor mío” — Adonai en hebreo)?
El primer versículo del capítulo 18 dice:

“Y se le apareció YHVH a Abraham junto a los encinares de Mamré, mientras él estaba sentado a la entrada de su tienda, en el calor del día.” (18:1)

¿Se dirige Abraham a YHVH o a los tres hombres, dado que está en singular? ¿Reconoce a uno de ellos como YHVH y a los otros dos como ángeles?

Más adelante, después de que dos de los hombres se marchan, YHVH se queda con Abraham para negociar el destino de Sodoma y Gomorra. Parece que Abraham sabe perfectamente con quién debe hablar.

Vemos también a Abraham mostrando la hospitalidad típica del Oriente Medio: envía a su siervo a preparar un becerro y a su esposa a hacer panes de tres medidas de harina para poner ante sus invitados.
¿Qué fue exactamente lo que se sirvió en esta comida?


Leche y carne

“Y tomó mantequilla, leche y el becerro que había preparado, y los puso delante de ellos; y él se quedó de pie junto a ellos bajo el árbol, mientras comían.” (18:8)

¿Por qué Abraham sirve leche, mantequilla y carne en la misma comida? Está claro que la carne fue preparada aparte de los lácteos (no fue hervida en leche). Pero en el judaísmo moderno nunca se sirven juntos platos de leche y carne en una misma comida.
¿Cómo evolucionó esta regla estricta del judaísmo moderno a partir de un pasaje bíblico tan claro que aparentemente Abraham comprendía?

(La ley fue escrita tres veces en la Torá para que no la malentendamos: Éxodo 23:19, Éxodo 34:26, Deuteronomio 14:21).

¿Es posible que la ley sobre “no cocer al cabrito en la leche de su madre” no fuera conocida por Abraham?
Está claro que él no coció nada. Así que cuando Génesis 26 dice que Abraham conocía las leyes de la Torá, debe significar que tenía una comprensión más profunda que lo que hoy se entiende por Torá.
Entonces, ¿cómo evolucionó esta ley hasta su interpretación actual?


¿Guardó Abraham la Torá?

Génesis 26:5 — “Por cuanto Abraham oyó mi voz, y guardó mi ordenanza, mis mandamientos, mis estatutos y mis leyes.”
(La palabra hebrea para “leyes” es Torotai, de Torá).

Después de la comida, los dos hombres que estaban con YHVH partieron hacia Sodoma, y YHVH se quedó para hablar más con Abraham sobre sus planes de destruir la ciudad malvada.
Abraham intercede, rogando que no se destruyan los justos junto con los malvados, bajando la cifra de cincuenta hasta diez (v. 23). Luego, YHVH se va.


Diez hombres

De este pasaje, donde diez personas son el límite para la misericordia divina, surge la costumbre ortodoxa del minyán: se requieren diez hombres para interceder ante el Eterno en asuntos importantes, como el Kadish de duelo, el Yahrzeit o las bendiciones nupciales.
Si miramos el pasaje en Génesis, los diez se refieren a personas justas, no necesariamente hombres.
Y surge otra pregunta: ¿siempre es necesario tener diez personas para orar a YHVH en asuntos importantes?
Ciertamente, cuantas más personas justas oren, más serán escuchadas. Pero, ¿qué hay de Elías cuando llamó fuego del cielo? Él estaba solo.
¿Hay otros momentos en que Dios responde a una oración sin un minyán?


Isaac

En el capítulo 21 se cumple la promesa a Sara: ella da a luz a Isaac.
Su nombre significa “risa”. Es interesante que tanto Abraham como Sara rieron cuando se les dio la promesa.
El nombre de Isaac fue dado por YHVH antes de su nacimiento.
Cuando Abraham rió (17:17), preguntó cómo un hombre de 100 años y una mujer de 90 podrían tener un hijo.
En el capítulo 18, cuando los tres visitantes llegan, es Sara quien ríe (18:12), pero por miedo niega haber reído.
Ella se preguntó cómo, siendo tan mayor y con su marido anciano, podría volver a sentir placer.


Los ángeles visitan a Lot

En el capítulo 19, los dos ángeles llegan a Sodoma y Lot los invita a hospedarse.
Por la noche, la gente del pueblo intenta abusar de ellos, y Lot ofrece entregar a sus dos hijas vírgenes.
Los ángeles lo salvan de esta situación golpeando de ceguera a los hombres del pueblo.

¿Por qué haría un padre tal cosa, siendo el protector de su familia?
Más tarde, Lot no busca esposos para sus hijas, y ellas eligen el camino del incesto con su padre para tener descendencia.
Algunos dicen que estaban tan aisladas que no había hombres para casarse; otros, que temían unirse a los habitantes de la tierra.

Durante la huida de Sodoma, se les advirtió que no miraran atrás.
La esposa de Lot miró y se convirtió en una columna de sal.
¿Qué significa esto? ¿Fue literal, o una lección sobre no aferrarse con amargura al pasado?
¿Se rehusó ella a marcharse y fue alcanzada por el fuego? ¿Se retrasó cuando los demás huían?
¿Por qué miró atrás?


El destierro de Ismael

En el capítulo 21, cuando nace Isaac y es circuncidado, vemos a Sara pedir que Ismael sea expulsado con su madre, para que no comparta la herencia con Isaac.
Pero recordemos que fue por insistencia de Sara que Abraham tomó a Agar para tener un hijo.
Ahora que tiene un hijo propio, se vuelve contra ella y la expulsa por mandato divino.
El muchacho tenía más de 13 años, según la cronología: Abraham e Ismael fueron circuncidados cuando Ismael tenía 13; al año siguiente nació Isaac.
Ismael, ya adolescente, es descrito más adelante como un niño: Agar lo deja bajo un arbusto, agotado, para morir.
¿Cómo es posible? ¿Estaba tan abrumado por la tristeza que se dejó caer él mismo?
Cuando el ángel encontró a Agar, dijo que Dios había escuchado la oración del muchacho (21:17).
También le dio la promesa de que Ismael sería bendecido y formaría una gran nación.

Pocas generaciones después, fueron ismaelitas quienes compraron a José cuando sus hermanos lo vendieron.
Solo dos generaciones, y ya había suficiente enemistad como para vender a su propio pariente como esclavo.


¿Por qué la prueba de la Akedá?

Vemos que Abraham hace una alianza con Abimelec, lo que parece haber llevado a la prueba más difícil: la Akedá, el sacrificio de Isaac en el monte Moriah.
Dios probó a Abraham con una prueba casi inimaginable después de haber hecho un pacto con un poder extranjero.
La tierra no debía ser negociada; fue dada a Abraham.
¿Por qué entonces hace una alianza con Abimelec?
Mirando hacia atrás, conociendo las luchas de Israel con las alianzas, parece que Dios le estaba mostrando que si entregaba la tierra, sería como no tener descendencia —y eso mismo vemos aún hoy.

Curiosamente, Abimelec volvió a la tierra de los filisteos, que era Gaza.

“Y Abraham habitó largo tiempo en la tierra de los filisteos.” (21:34)

¿Por qué seguimos teniendo problemas con Gaza?
¿Comenzó todo con el pacto indebido que Abraham hizo con Abimelec?


¡Shabat Shalom!

Ariella


¿Quieres que te lo formatee como texto para boletín o folleto (por ejemplo, con títulos destacados y notas al pie en cursiva)? Puedo hacerlo fácilmente.

Parashat Vayera Genesis 18-22

Sodom, Promise to Abraham, Ishmael, Hagar, Isaac, Akeida…Gaza

Genesis 18-22, covers a lot of ground. There is probably enough material for a book on any of the topics recorded in these four chapters.

Angels’ Visit to Abraham:

In Genesis 18, YHVH appears to Abraham, and he sees three figures pass by the tent while he is sitting in the entrance in the “heat of the day”. Genesis 17 tells of Abraham circumcising himself, Ishmael and all the males of his household. Chapter 18 follows with Abraham sitting at the door of his tent. Many commentaries say that Abraham was still in the pain of the circumcision when the visitors came to him. This is not clear from the plain reading of the text.

In chapter 17:26 we read: “Thus Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised on that very day;” From the context it seems that Abraham circumcised both himself and Ishmael on the very day that he received the command to do so. The rest of the servants and staff of his household are mentioned afterwards and thus may have been circumcised a little later. It is not clear that they were all circumcised on the same day, nor is it clear that Abraham was sitting in the “heat” (“heat” according to rabbinic commentaries meaning maximum pain) on the 3rd day when the Heavenly visitors came. There is no mention of the 3rd day here.

 “Babylonian Talmud (Bava Metzia 86b), interprets “in the heat of the day” as a reference to the third day after Abraham was circumcised at the age of 99.”

What is a possible understanding of a text is not necessarily fact, as we often see when reading biblical texts and their commentaries. If we stay true to Biblical text, there will be unanswered questions which must be explored or accepted as unanswered. What would be the motive for saying that YHVH visited Abraham on the 3rd day when he was in extreme pain? 

The text shows Abraham running to meet the three visitors. How could he do this in the pain after circumcision?

 “And Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he ran from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.” My Lord,” said Abraham, “if I have found favor in your sight, please do not pass your servant by. Let a little water be brought, that you may wash your feet and rest yourselves under the tree. And I will bring a bit of bread so that you may refresh yourselves. This is why you have passed your servant’s way. After that, you may continue on your way.”

Why does Abraham address the three men as “my Lord” in the singular (Master–Adonai in Hebrew)? The first verse of chapter 18 says: 

“Then YHVH appeared to Abraham by the Oaksa of Mamre in the heat of the day, while he was sitting at the entrance of his tent.” 18:1

Does Abraham address YHVH or the three men since it is written in the singular? Does he recognize one of them as YHVH and the other two as angels? 

Later, after two of the men leave, YHVH stays with Abraham to bargain for the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. It would appear that Abraham knows whom he must speak to. 

We see Abraham with typical Middle Eastern hospitality, send his servant to prepare a calf and his wife to make three portions of flour into bread to set before his guests. What was set before the guests in this meal? 

Milk and Meat:

“Then Abraham brought curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and he set them before the men and stood by them under the tree as they ate.” 18:8

Why does Abraham serve milk, curds and a calf at the same meal? It is clear that the meat was prepared separately from the milk, (it was not boiled in the milk). But in Modern Judaism, dishes made with milk are never allowed at a meal where meat is consumed. How has this bottom line rule of Modern Judaism evolved from a clearly written passage that apparently Abraham understood? (By the way the law was written three times in the Torah so we wouldn’t get it wrong. (Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26, Deuteronomy 14:21). 

Is it possible that the law about boiling a kid in its mother’s milk was not known by Abraham? It is pretty clear that he did not boil anything, so when Genesis 26 says that Abraham knew the laws of the Torah, it must mean he had a better idea of what it meant than what is known as Torah today. So how did this law evolve to what it is today? 

Did Abraham keep the Torah?

26:5  עֵקֶב אֲשֶׁר־שָׁמַע אַבְרָהָם בְּקֹלִי וַיִּשְׁמֹר מִשְׁמַרְתִּי מִצְוֺתַי חֻקּוֹתַי וְתוֹרֹתָי׃

Gen 26: “5 because that Abraham hearkened to my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (The Hebrew for ” law” is Torah).

After the meal the two men with YHVH got up to journey to Sodom and YHVH stayed to speak more with Abraham about His plans to destroy the wicked city. Abraham bargains for the salvation of the city from 50 innocent, down to 10, that the judge of the earth be merciful–not slaying the righteous with the wicked (verse 23). And then YHVH left. 

Ten Men

From this passage which shows ten people as being the limit to God’s mercy, we have the declaration that an Orthodox minyan requires 10 men to intercede with the Eternal on important matters such as reciting the Mourner’s Kaddish or Yahrzeit or Wedding blessings. If we look at the passage in Genesis, the 10 referred to righteous persons not necessarily, men. And another question arises, is it always necessary to have 10 persons pray to YHVH on important matters? Certainly, from the standpoint of numbers the more righteous people pray the more they will be heard. But what about when Elijah called down fire from heaven? He was a lone voice. Are there other times when God answers prayers without a minyan? 

Isaac

In chapter 21 the promise to Sarah is fulfilled. She gives birth to Isaac. His name means laughter. Isn’t it interesting that both Abraham and Sarah laughed when the promise was first given to them? Isaac’s name was given by YHVH in advance of his birth. When Abraham laughed (Chapter 17:17), he asked how it might be that a man at 100 and Sarah at 90 could have a son? In chapter 18 when the three Strangers visited Abraham, it was Sarah’s turn to laugh (Chapter 18:12) but she was afraid and lied that she had not laughed. She asked how she having passed her child bearing age and her husband so old, should finally find enjoyment. 

Angels visit Lot

In chapter 19, the two angel messengers arrive at Sodom and are urged to stay with Lot. In the evening, the town’s people want to defile them, and Lot offers to surrender his two virgin daughters for the town to do as they wished. The angels then saved Lot from this harrowing encounter with the townsfolk by striking blindness upon those gathered outside. 

Why would this be right for a father to say if he stands as the protector of the family? Later, Lot did not seek husbands for his daughters, and they chose the path of incest with their father to be able to produce offspring. Some say they were so isolated that they didn’t ever encounter men available to marry. Maybe they were afraid to marry any of the inhabitants of the land.

Looking back at the escape from Sodom: when in the morning Lot, his wife and daughters were hurried out of the city, they were warned to hurry and not look back. Lot’s wife turned to a pillar of salt when she disobeyed. What does this mean? Was it a literal pillar, or was it a lesson in not having bitterness about leaving the past behind? Was she unwilling to leave and got caught by the fire that was falling? Did she lag behind when the rest of them were hurrying to safety? Why did she look back? 

Casting out Ishmael

In chapter 21, when Isaac is born and is circumcised, we see Sarah asking to have Ishmael cast out with his mother, so that he would not inherit anything that belonged rightfully to Isaac. But if we remember, it was at Sarah’s insistence that Hagar be taken to produce a son for Abraham. Now that she has a child of her own, she turns on Hagar who is extradited at God’s command and sent to wander with her son in the desert. The boy was more than 13, given the timeline of what had happened previously. Abraham and Ishmael are circumcised when Ishmael is 13, then the next year Sarah gives birth to Isaac, Ishmael is playing, perhaps mocking Isaac and Sarah tells Abraham to send them away. Ishmael, strangely is shown to be a child in the verses that follow. His mother lays him down under a bush to die. How is this possible, if he is a strapping lad of 14 or more? Was he in grief so overbearing that he wanted to die and thus lay down himself? When the angel found Hagar, he said that God had heard Ishmael’s prayer (21:17). He also gave her the promise that Ishmael would be blessed and grow to a great nation. 

Not many years hence it was the Ishmaelites that bought Joseph when his brothers decided to sell him. Only 2 generations had passed, and there was already animosity enough to sell their kinsman as a slave. 

Why the test of Akeida

We see Abraham making an alliance with Abimelech which later seems to have brought about the test of all time, the call for the Akeida on Mt. Moriah. God tested Abraham with an almost unimaginable test after making a covenant with a foreign power. The land was not to be bartered off. The land was given to Abraham, so why did he make a covenant with Abimelech? Looking back on this with knowledge of Israel’s struggles with alliances seems to reveal a that God was showing Abraham that if he gave the land away, he might as well not have descendants, and we see that happening all around us today. Curiously Abimelech returned to the land of the Philistines which was Gaza. 

“And Abraham resided in the land of the Philistines a long time.” (21:34)

Why are we still having trouble with Gaza? Was all this started with a wrongful covenant that Abraham made with Abimelech?

Shabbat Shalom!

Ariella

The Evil Inclination–How to catch a Snake before it Bites

The Power of Choice

Among religions that embrace the Bible as God’s word, there are two approaches that attempt to explain the nature of man. Christians for the most part embrace Original Sin and this belief is backed by the current understanding which comes from the writings of the New Testament. Jews however do not embrace this theory, as the belief put forth in the Old Testament or Tanakh does not support it. We call what came upon humanity after eating of the tree in the Garden, the Evil Inclination. In this paper, I want to open discussion of these two beliefs and their effects on humanity.

So first off, what is Original Sin, and when was this doctrine formalized in Christianity?

The following quotes cite what is generally believed to be timing for the development and the definition of Original Sin:

“While the Genesis story lays the foundation for the concept of the Fall, St. Augustine was the first to use the term “original sin” and articulate its transmission through human reproduction. The Roman Catholic Church later formalized the doctrine at the Council of Trent, while figures like Martin Luther and John Calvin contributed to its development and spread, especially during the Protestant Reformation.” (See Reference here).

“The doctrine of original sin was developed by Saint Augustine in the 4th and 5th centuries and gained official acceptance in the Western Church at the Council of Carthage in 418 CE, leading to its incorporation into Roman Catholic doctrine. The doctrine was then formalized further by the Councils of Trent in the 16th century.” (Web Reference here).

“Original sin is an Augustine Christian doctrine that says that everyone is born sinful. This means that they are born with a built-in urge to do bad things and to disobey God. It is an important doctrine within the Roman Catholic Church. The concept of Original Sin was explained in depth by St Augustine and formalized as part of Roman Catholic doctrine by the Councils of Trent in the 16th Century. Original sin is not just this inherited spiritual disease or defect in human nature; it’s also the ‘condemnation’ that goes with that fault.” (Reference)

But is this an acceptable approach in the process of salvation?

I would guess that the majority of Christians accept the doctrine of Original Sin as undeniable truth.  I am uncomfortable with it.
The belief that Adam and Eve, by choosing to eat of the forbidden tree, now had no alternative but to receive a fallen nature– inherently sinful for their descendants from birth. It continues that all of humanity has carried this curse from that moment in the garden until this day. This obviously demands interference from Heaven in providing a substitute who cleans up the record of whomever will accept it. However, if we think through this theory and what it actually reveals, we will see things that do not fit the picture.

Sins that pass down:

There is the verse given in Exodus 20 in the command to abstain from idol worship which claims that the sins of the fathers pass down.

Exo 20: “5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I YHVH, thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;” Note that these are passed down from those who hate God.

So how do we fit that into our views? We know that an alcoholic or drug addict often passes down tendencies toward addictions to his or her children. We see it all the time. And a mother or father who justifies lying in their own life will see the same trend in the lives of their children. Is this a genetic weakness? Or is it learned behavior? If it is not genetic, then why do children who are adopted out as infants to different home often have the same traits? It is almost like hereditary weaknesses to disease. But regardless of our parents weaknesses and actual sins, we are challenged to overcome these things, no matter how difficult.

There is the question of why the Eternal would even place that tree in the garden and allow Eve to be seduced and lied to in her status of innocence. This creates a picture of a cruel and unjust God who purposely created mankind to fail. It also leads to a need for another substitute god who understands mankind by taking on human flesh and is able to present them to this angry God and justify them by his own blood.  But I cannot accept this theory because of what it does to distort the character of the God of the Universe!

If my last two articles are correct (See Here and Here), when the Creator said, Let US make man in Our image, after Our likeness, He was speaking to the man who would play a part by his own choice of which nature would dominate him. It also indicates that mankind, though created by the hand of God, was still made from the dust of the earth, which meant that he was created to be human and not in the image of the angels. His choices would decide if he would reflect the divine image, or if he would merely be as the beasts that perish. 

Those who strive for the divine image struggle with difficulties placed upon their nature by the choices their first parents made at the forbidden tree. Is this struggle all bad? It surely would have been easier for humans to live here on earth in luxury, not having to work, having everything they want bestowed upon them without a struggle on their part, but was that the divine plan?

So what actually happened at the tree? Is it possible that rather than God being harsh and exacting, He was planning through the cooperation of mankind after the fall to become the strongest race of beings that were ever created? Was the Yetzer Hara (Evil Inclination) really a condemnation of doom to the human race, or was it actually a test and process for the creation of man in the image of God? A program for the creation of people who would be trusted to rule the world and maybe even part of the universe?

A case was made by the serpent to doubt God’s word and His very character. Eve chose to offer the same temptation to Adam, who might have resisted but for her insistence, joined her in disobedience. At this point they opted for the right to choose for themselves against the instructions of the Creator. Was it right to choose for themselves at this point in their time on earth? I can’t answer that. The choice they made was clearly based on doubt towards their Creator and desire for something new and exciting. Isn’t this what is behind nearly every bad choice that humans make?  If we think of the sins that usually tempt us, most of them are irrational based on good judgment. Sins of lust, exploitation, self gratification, murder, thievery, abuse of drugs and every other temptation.

Judaism claims that the Yetzer Hara came into being when the couple chose to eat of the fruit. But how is the Evil Inclination different from Original Sin? 

So what is the difference in the two views?

Original sin is a burden mankind cannot deal with unless he has a substitute. He is born with a sinful nature and cannot be righteous by his own choices nor by suppression of his evil nature, nor of locking oneself in monasteries where self chastisement is practiced. 
The Evil Inclination, is an inherited tendency to obey one’s passions and lusts, that is, like Original Sin passed down from generation to generation, but contrary to the view of the helpless condition of mankind under Original Sin, the evil inclination can be suppressed by obedience to the Torah and humbly seeking help from the Almighty. So the Yetzer Hara can actually be a testing agent to prepare us for greater things. We think of kings who sent their young sons to learn sword fighting in past ages. They had to become strong and clever to be able to fight the wars that they must win when they became king themselves.

From Sefaria (a Jewish Reference website), the Way of God by the RaMCHal:
“Man is the creature created for the purpose of being drawn close to God. He is placed between perfection and deficiency, with the power to earn perfection. Man must earn this perfection, however, through his own free will…Man’s inclinations are therefore balanced between good [Yetzer Hatov] and evil [Yetzer Hara], and he is not compelled toward either of them. He has the power of choice and is able to choose either side knowingly and willingly...” Reference

There is a proof text for the idea that sin can be overcome before the evil inclination is acted upon in Genesis, where God interrupted Cain before he slew his brother:

Gen 4:”5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. 6 Then the YHVH said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

So before Cain acted on his anger, he was told that he could and must rule over it. This does not sound like Original Sin, of which it is claimed that humanly we can do nothing about it and that is the reason for the need of a substitute to overcome for us.

Very early on in the history of the world, God Himself tells Cain that he can “do what is right”: and if he does, he will “be accepted”. Note that he is not condemned for his anger. This is that evil inclination that he received from his parents genetically. But Elohim continued:”you must rule over it.” Can we as humans rule over our passions? Christianity says we cannot without a substitute. The Bible says we can do it with God’s help and our own determination. This is how righteous men and women of old were formed–man rising above the dust of the earth to reflect in himself the divine image!

Before the flood, there were two distinct classes of people. The righteous Sons of God who exercised control over their passions and submitted to God’s leading, and the wicked rabble –those who chose to follow their passions. The world came to an end at that time for all but eight people. 

Are there other examples?  Does God offer strength to overcome?

So how do we explain Psalms 51:5?

“5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.” 

This verse is used to support the doctrine of Original Sin, yet, the Evil Inclination, (the desire to do evil) is also passed down from generation to generation. So what is David saying? That the temptation was overwhelming and he blew it. That it was natural for him to be tempted and though he does not excuse it, he reminds the Creator of this as if reminding Him of his human weakness, but David goes on to express his gratitude for God’s mercy. In a way, he blames his parentage for passing this temptation down to him. But in the words that follow, he takes the entire blame. 

Psa 51:”3 For I know my transgressions; And my sin is ever before me.  … 7 Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.  8 Make me to hear joy and gladness, That the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.  9 Hide thy face from my sins, And blot out all mine iniquities.  10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; And renew a right spirit within me.  11 Cast me not away from thy presence; And take not thy Holy Spirit from me.  12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; And uphold me with a willing spirit. “14 Deliver me from the guilt of bloodshed, O God, you who are God my Savior, and my tongue will sing of your righteousness. 15 Open my lips, Lord, and my mouth will declare your praise. 16 For you do not delight in sacrifice; else would I give it: Thou hast no pleasure in burnt-offering. “

It is interesting that while David pleads with God to forgive him and to restore to him a clean heart, he shows it has nothing to do with a blood sacrifice. This shows the trusting human response to God when after we have sinned. And the truly righteous God we serve who needs no middle man to stand for us as an advocate. Our Creator Himself is our Savior and the only one who can forgive sin. 

Mic 7: “18 Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. 19 You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.”

Nineveh: In the story of Jonah, the people of Nineveh put on sackcloth and repented from their sins after Jonah told them of the forthcoming destruction of their city. Then God repented of the wrath that he had towards them and forgave them, though it angered Jonah:

Jon 3: “6 When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. 7 This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh: “By the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. 8 But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.” 10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.”

Jon 4:”1 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry. 2 And he prayed unto YHVH, and said, I pray thee, O YHVH, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.”

Are babies born sinners?

This belief, one of the most damning of them all, places sin in the genetics which cannot be overcome. It takes sin out of the realm of acting and places it in our flesh. In the case of Cain, above, when Elohim spoke to him, he was already angry and ready to kill his brother. But that thought and attitude was not sin, he was reminded to overcome the tendency to do evil. When we blame ourselves or others for what we or they think, then we are missing the entire picture. Sin is what happens after the temptation. 

How to stop smoking! Just do it? 

One desires to stop smoking (I am not referring to smoking here as sin). 

The urge is extreme. “Just let me have that next cigarette.” But you resist it this time. The urge gets stronger, You stop for two weeks, then someone lights up and offers you a rolled cigarette. This time you light up and enjoy it, but then you feel ashamed, but you don’t give up. You try again. Two months later the same thing happens, and you hate yourself for your weakness, but you determine to try again. Two years later the urge is a little less though still desirable, and you have learned to stay away from people at work who are taking a smoke break. Avoidance.

Ten years later, the smell of tobacco still affects you, but you have learned to resist and to avoid it. And now you are no longer a smoker. So good for you! Some people never muster up the courage to quit, and some don’t want to quit. But this is about choices and change. You can do anything, almost, that you set your mind to do!

What about words? What about an angry temper and cussing? If words unjustly hurt people, are they classified as sin? If cussing makes us look weak and evil, with no self-control, then maybe start a cuss jar. Put money into it each time. When it adds up, give it to charity. Turn something bad into something good, and if it hurts enough, maybe you will see a change. 

So, I believe that the evil inclination–the temptation to do things that are wrong, is not sin. It is what you do with it. And as to Original Sin, no baby is destined to hellfire without sprinkling. We die for our sins, not for our tendencies! 

May your path to the Divine Image be successful,

Ariella Golani